Face the Nation (CBS) - 2009-05-10

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] Trapped and terrorized in a foreign

[0:02] country by her husband. Coin Local 6

[0:04] Monday at 11.

[0:05] >> Today on Face the Nation, former Vice

[0:08] President Dick Cheney and he's talking.

[0:11] His old boss George Bush has left town

[0:13] and is keeping quiet, but Dick Cheney is

[0:16] not. He's speaking out and we'll get his

[0:19] take today on the future of the

[0:21] Republican party, the controversial

[0:23] interrogation techniques, Iraq,

[0:25] Pakistan, and the new administration of

[0:28] President Obama. Then I'll have a final

[0:31] word on a quiet kind of justice. But

[0:34] first, Dick Cheney on Face the Nation.

[0:44] Face the nation with CBS News chief

[0:47] Washington correspondent Bob Schiffer.

[0:50] And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob

[0:53] Schiffer.

[0:54] >> And good morning again. The former vice

[0:57] president is in the studio with us this

[0:58] morning as he has been many times over

[1:00] the years. Mr. Vice President, um, thank

[1:03] you for being here. You're obviously

[1:05] here because we invited you here and we

[1:07] appreciate that. But I want to ask you

[1:09] something. Uh, President Bush has done

[1:12] what uh, people normally do when they

[1:14] leave the Oval Office. Uh, he has

[1:16] remained mum. He said very little. In

[1:18] one point he said uh, that he thought

[1:21] President Obama deserved his silence.

[1:23] But you have taken a very different tack

[1:25] and I must say a very unusual tack for

[1:28] somebody just leaving the vice

[1:29] president's office. You've been speaking

[1:31] out not just frequently but often very

[1:34] pointedly. At one point you said, for

[1:36] example, the Obama administration has

[1:39] made this country less safe. That's a

[1:41] very serious charge. Why have you taken

[1:44] this approach?

[1:45] >> Well, Bob, uh, first of all, it's good

[1:47] to be back on the show. It's it's nice

[1:49] to know that you're still loved and are

[1:52] invited out in public sometimes. the um

[1:56] the reason I've been speaking and and in

[1:58] effect what I've been doing is

[2:00] responding to press queries such as as

[2:02] yours um is because I think the issues

[2:06] that are at stake here are so important

[2:08] and in effect what we've seen happen

[2:11] with respect to the Obama administration

[2:13] as they came to power is they have moved

[2:16] to

[2:18] take down a lot of those policies we put

[2:21] in place that kept the nation safe for

[2:22] nearly eight years from the follow on

[2:24] terrorist attack like 9/11

[2:27] um dealing with prisoner interrogation

[2:29] for example or the terrorist

[2:32] surveillance program. They campaigned

[2:34] against these policies across the

[2:36] country and then they came in now and

[2:37] they have tried uh very hard to u

[2:41] undertake actions that I just

[2:43] fundamentally disagree with.

[2:44] >> Well, do you I mean do you should we

[2:46] take that literally? Do you say that the

[2:48] administration has made this country

[2:50] more vulnerable to attacks here in the

[2:53] homeland?

[2:54] >> I that's my belief based upon the fact,

[2:56] Bob, that we put in place those policies

[2:59] after 9/11 on on the morning of 912, if

[3:03] you will. There was a great deal we

[3:05] didn't know about al-Qaeda. There was

[3:08] need uh to embark upon a new strategy

[3:11] with respect to treating this as a

[3:13] strategic threat to the United States.

[3:15] there was the possibility of al-Qaeda

[3:17] terrorist in the midst of one of our own

[3:19] cities with a nuclear weapon or a

[3:20] biological agent. It was a time of of

[3:23] great concern and we put in place some

[3:25] very good policies and they worked for 8

[3:28] years. Now we have an administration

[3:30] that's come to power that's that's been

[3:32] critical of u of the programs. But not

[3:35] only that, there's been talk about

[3:36] prosecuting the lawyers and the justice

[3:38] department who gave us the opinions that

[3:41] we operated in accordance with or

[3:43] referring them to the bar associations

[3:45] for disbarment or sanctions of some kind

[3:48] or possibly cooperating with foreign

[3:50] governments that are interested in

[3:51] trying to prosecute American officials.

[3:53] Those sames officials who were

[3:55] responsible for defending this nation

[3:57] for the last 8 years. Now that whole

[4:01] complex of things is what I find deeply

[4:04] disturbing and I think uh to the extent

[4:07] that those policies were responsible for

[4:10] saving lives that the administration is

[4:13] now trying to cancel those policies or

[4:16] end them, terminate them, then I think

[4:19] uh it's fair to argue and I do argue

[4:21] that that means in the future we're not

[4:24] going to have the same safeguards we've

[4:25] had for the last 8 years. But

[4:28] why does that make the country less

[4:30] safe? You're talking about you say you

[4:32] don't think we ought to be going back

[4:34] and and questioning those people looking

[4:36] into some of these things. All right, I

[4:38] take your point on that. But how is that

[4:40] making the country less safe? How does

[4:42] that make the country more vulnerable to

[4:44] an attack in the future?

[4:46] >> Well, at the heart of what we did with

[4:48] the terrorist surveillance program and

[4:50] the enhanced interrogation techniques

[4:52] for al-Qaeda terrorist and so forth was

[4:54] collect information. It was about

[4:55] intelligence. It was about finding out

[4:57] what al-Qaeda was going to do, what

[4:59] their capabilities and plans were. It

[5:02] was discovering all those things we

[5:03] needed in order to be able to go defeat

[5:06] al-Qaeda. And um in effect, what's

[5:09] happening here when you get rid of

[5:10] enhanced interrogation techniques, for

[5:12] example, or or the terrorist

[5:15] surveillance program, you reduce the

[5:16] intelligence flow to the intelligence

[5:18] community upon which we based those

[5:20] policies that were so successful. So I

[5:23] think uh before they do that sort of

[5:25] thing, it's important to sit down and

[5:27] find out what did we learn, why did it

[5:30] work. One of the things that uh I did

[5:32] six weeks ago was I made a request that

[5:34] two memos that I personally know of

[5:36] written by the CIA that lay out the

[5:38] successes of those policies and point

[5:41] out in considerable detail all of we

[5:44] were all that we were able to achieve by

[5:46] virtue of those policies that those

[5:49] memos be released be made public.

[5:51] administration's released legal opinions

[5:53] out of the Office of Legal Counsel. Um,

[5:55] they don't have any qualms at all about

[5:57] putting things out that can be used to

[5:59] be critical of the Bush administration

[6:01] policies, but when you've got memos out

[6:03] there that show precisely how much was

[6:05] achieved and how lives were saved as a

[6:08] result of these policies, they won't

[6:10] release those.

[6:10] >> Well, let me just ask you about that

[6:12] because some people in the

[6:13] administration, I believe the attorney

[6:15] general says he does not know of such

[6:18] memos. uh other people in the

[6:20] administration say as a matter of fact

[6:22] uh what we found out uh using these uh

[6:25] methods and and I mean let's call things

[6:27] what they are waterboarding was one of

[6:29] the techniques that were used that they

[6:31] really didn't get all that much from

[6:33] that uh you say they did

[6:35] >> I say they did four former directors of

[6:38] the central intelligence agency say they

[6:40] did bipartisan basis released the memos

[6:44] and we can uh look and see for yourself

[6:46] what was produced the memos do exist

[6:48] I've seen them. I had them in my files

[6:50] at one time. Now everything's part of

[6:52] the National Archives. Uh I'm sure the

[6:54] agency has copies of those materials.

[6:57] And there's a formal way you go through

[6:59] once you're a former official, a formal

[7:01] way you go through requesting

[7:02] declassification of something. And I

[7:04] started that process, as I say six weeks

[7:06] ago. I haven't heard anything from it

[7:08] yet. I

[7:08] >> You have not They haven't uh responded

[7:11] to you as yet.

[7:12] >> That's right. There's been uh up till

[7:14] now I've got a a letter of notification

[7:16] saying they'd started the process, but I

[7:18] haven't seen anything uh by way of a

[7:21] result from this request for

[7:22] declassification. And if we're going to

[7:24] have this debate, it ought to be a

[7:26] complete debate. And uh those memos

[7:29] ought to be out there for people to look

[7:30] at and journalists like yourself to

[7:32] evaluate in terms of what we are able to

[7:35] accomplish with

[7:36] >> Well, Mr. Vice President, let me ask you

[7:38] this. I mean, I'm not asking you to

[7:40] violate any rules of classification, but

[7:42] is there anything you can tell us

[7:44] specifically uh that those memos would

[7:46] would tell us? I mean, some information

[7:48] we gleaned, some some fact that we got

[7:51] that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

[7:53] >> That's what's in those memos. It talks

[7:54] specifically about different uh attack

[7:57] planning that was underway and how it

[7:59] was stopped. Talks about how um the um

[8:03] the volume of intelligence reports that

[8:05] were produced from that. Does he talk

[8:07] about planning for attacks or attacks

[8:10] that were actually stopped?

[8:12] >> Um, well, I I I'm need to be careful

[8:15] here, Bob, because it's still

[8:17] classified. The the way to answer this

[8:19] is give us the memos, put them out

[8:21] there, release them to the press, let

[8:22] everybody take a look and and see. What

[8:25] it shows is that overwhelmingly

[8:28] um the uh process we had in place

[8:32] produced from certain key individuals

[8:34] such as Khaled Shake Muhammad and Abu

[8:36] Zabeda. Two of the three who were

[8:38] waterboarded and Khaled Shake Muhammad's

[8:41] the man who killed 3,000 Americans on

[8:43] 9/11, blew up the World Trade Center,

[8:46] attacked the Pentagon, tried to blow up

[8:47] the White House or the Capitol building.

[8:50] um an evil evil man that's been in our

[8:52] custody since March of 03. He did not

[8:55] cooperate fully in terms of

[8:57] interrogations until after

[8:58] waterboarding. Once we went through that

[9:00] process, he produced vast quantities of

[9:03] invaluable information about al-Qaeda.

[9:05] >> What do you say to those Mr. vice

[9:07] president who say that when we employ

[9:10] these kind of tactics which are after

[9:12] all the tactics that the other side uses

[9:15] that when we adopt their methods that

[9:17] we're weakening security not enhancing

[9:20] security because it sort of makes a

[9:23] mockery of what we we tell the rest of

[9:25] the world. Well, then you'd have to say

[9:27] that um um in effect we're prepared to

[9:32] sacrifice American lives rather than run

[9:34] an intelligent interrogation program

[9:36] that would provide us the information we

[9:38] need to protect America. Um the fact of

[9:41] the matter is these techniques that

[9:43] we're talking about um are used on our

[9:45] own people. We've in a SER program that

[9:49] in effect trains our people with respect

[9:51] to capture and evasion and so forth and

[9:54] escape. Um, a lot of them go through

[9:57] these same same exact procedures.

[9:59] >> Do you is what you're saying here is

[10:01] that we should do anything if we could

[10:04] get information.

[10:06] >> No, but remember what happened here,

[10:07] Bob? We had uh captured these people. We

[10:11] had pursued uh interrogation more normal

[10:14] way. We decided that we needed some

[10:17] enhanced techniques. So, we went to the

[10:19] justice department and the controversy

[10:22] has arisen over the opinions written by

[10:23] the justice department. The reason we

[10:25] went to the Justice Department wasn't

[10:27] because we felt we were going to take

[10:28] some kind of freehand assault on these

[10:30] people or that we were in the torture

[10:32] business. We weren't. And uh

[10:34] specifically what we got from the Office

[10:36] of Legal Counsel were uh legal memos

[10:39] that laid out what's appropriate and

[10:41] what's not appropriate in light of our

[10:43] international commitments. If we had

[10:45] been about torture, we wouldn't have

[10:47] wasted our time going to the Justice

[10:49] Department. How much did President Bush

[10:52] know specifically about the methods that

[10:54] were being used? We know that you uh and

[10:57] you have said that you approved this,

[10:59] right?

[11:00] >> Uh somewhere down the line, uh did

[11:01] President Bush know everything you knew?

[11:04] >> Um I certainly uh yeah, have every

[11:07] reason to believe he knew uh he knew a

[11:10] great deal about the program. He he

[11:11] basically authorized it. I mean, this

[11:12] was a a presidential level decision and

[11:15] the decision went to the president. He

[11:17] signed off on it. Uh you you said um u

[11:21] you said just a moment ago as you were

[11:23] talking about this that uh you said that

[11:27] we have to realize what was at stake and

[11:30] we have to realize the circumstances. Do

[11:33] you have any regrets whatsoever

[11:36] about any of the methods that were taken

[11:38] any any of the things that were used

[11:41] back in those days? Because there's no

[11:43] question the country it was a different

[11:45] time. The country's mood was different.

[11:47] We had just been something had happened

[11:48] here that had never happened before. In

[11:51] retrospect, you you've years have

[11:53] passed. You're now out of office. Do you

[11:56] think we should have done some things

[11:57] differently back then or do you have any

[11:59] regrets about any of it?

[12:01] >> No regrets. I think it was absolutely

[12:03] the right thing to do. I am convinced,

[12:06] absolutely convinced that we saved

[12:08] thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands

[12:10] of lives. In the aftermath aftermath of

[12:13] 911, we had all of these questions about

[12:15] who al-Qaeda was, where they were

[12:16] operating, and so forth. We didn't know

[12:18] nearly as much as we know today. We were

[12:21] faced with a very real possibility. We

[12:23] had reporting that said al-Qaeda is

[12:24] trying to acquire nuclear capabilities.

[12:26] We had the AQ network out there, black

[12:29] market operators selling nuclear weapons

[12:31] technology to Libya, North Korea, and

[12:34] Iran. We had the anthrax attack within a

[12:37] matter of weeks after 9/11. We had um

[12:41] the kind of situation that meant that we

[12:45] were absolutely convinced, the country

[12:47] was convinced that uh there was very

[12:50] high likelihood of a follow-on attack, a

[12:52] mass casualty attack against the United

[12:54] States. No one then would have bet uh

[12:57] anything that you're going to go 8 years

[12:58] and not have another attack. And we know

[13:01] in fact that they did try other attacks

[13:03] and that we were able to stop them. Now,

[13:05] if you'd look at it from the perspective

[13:07] of a senior government official,

[13:08] somebody like myself who stood up and

[13:11] took the oath of office on January 20th

[13:13] of '01 and raised our right hand and

[13:15] said, "We're going to protect and defend

[13:17] the United States against all enemies,

[13:19] foreign and domestic." This was exactly

[13:22] exactly what was needed to do it. I

[13:24] think if you look at this intelligence

[13:26] program that when things are quieter 20

[13:30] or 30 years from now, you'll be able to

[13:31] look back on this and say this is one of

[13:33] the great success stories of American

[13:34] intelligence. I think in fact what the

[13:37] men and women and the intelligence

[13:38] community and the lawyers in the justice

[13:40] department and the senior officials who

[13:42] approved this program did exactly the

[13:44] right thing. I think the charge that

[13:46] somehow there was something wrong done

[13:48] here or that this was torture and

[13:49] violation of US uh statutes is just

[13:53] absolutely false.

[13:54] >> You you you were speaking out. You say

[13:56] you you obviously u feel passionately

[13:59] about this. How far are you willing to

[14:01] take this approach? Are you willing to

[14:03] go back to the Congress and talk to

[14:05] people in Congress about this? There are

[14:07] all kind of people talking about various

[14:09] kinds of investigations. Would you go

[14:11] back and talk to the Congress?

[14:13] >> Certainly. I've made made uh made it

[14:15] very clear that I feel very strongly

[14:17] that what we did here was exactly the

[14:18] right thing to do. And uh if I don't

[14:21] speak out, then where do we find

[14:23] ourselves, Bob? Then then the critics

[14:26] have a free run and there isn't anybody

[14:28] there on the other side to to tell the

[14:31] truth. Uh would you it's important

[14:33] important that we

[14:34] >> Senator Ley the chairman of the

[14:36] judiciary committee was on this

[14:37] broadcast recently and I said do you

[14:39] intend to ask uh uh the former vice

[14:42] president to come up and he said if he

[14:44] will testify under oath

[14:46] >> would you be willing to testify under

[14:48] oath?

[14:48] >> Well, I'd have to see what the

[14:50] circumstances are and what kind of

[14:51] precedent we were setting. Um but

[14:54] certainly I wouldn't be out here today

[14:55] if I didn't feel comfortable talking um

[14:59] about what we're doing publicly. I think

[15:01] it's uh I think it's very very important

[15:03] that we have a clear understanding that

[15:05] what happened here was an honorable

[15:09] um approach to defending the nation that

[15:12] there was nothing devious or deceitful

[15:15] or dishonest or illegal about what was

[15:17] done.

[15:17] >> All right. Well, we're going to take a

[15:18] little break here and come back and talk

[15:20] about this and some other things in a

[15:23] minute.

[15:32] Oil, energy, the environment. Where are

[15:36] the answers? This isn't a liberal or

[15:39] conservative issue. It's a human issue.

[15:42] As an energy company, Chevron has a

[15:44] great responsibility.

[15:46] So, we've improved our own energy

[15:48] efficiency 27% since 1992. And now we

[15:52] ask you to join us in one of the most

[15:54] important efforts of our time using

[15:57] less. Will you join us? Chevron, human

[16:00] energy.

[16:01] >> Pretty soon my 401k is going to be my

[16:03] monthly paycheck, you know. So my

[16:05] priority right now was to get all my

[16:07] financial ducks in a row and not make

[16:08] any mistakes.

[16:09] >> Well, before um I was quite happy to

[16:12] just let my old 401k sit there and do

[16:14] its thing. Now that just sounds like

[16:17] madness.

[16:33] We're back again with a former Vice

[16:35] President Dick Cheney. Uh Mr. Vice

[16:37] President, General Petraeus, our top

[16:39] military man out in that part of the

[16:41] world, said this morning he is confident

[16:43] that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are

[16:46] secure. Uh, but I want to ask you this.

[16:49] Does the United States have enough

[16:51] information about the location of those

[16:53] weapons and the security of those

[16:55] weapons that we could take action should

[16:58] there be a collapse of Pakistan's

[17:00] government or a civil war broke out?

[17:03] >> Well, I I wouldn't want to speculate on

[17:05] that, Bob. I think the the uh key thing

[17:08] from my perspective would be if General

[17:10] Petraeus who is our our commander and

[17:13] Sentcom covering that part of the world

[17:15] knowing as he does how important that

[17:17] issue is that he says they're on top of

[17:19] it. I believe it.

[17:20] >> So So

[17:22] how do you feel about what's happening

[17:24] in Pakistan right now though? I mean the

[17:26] Pakistani government continues to seem

[17:29] to have trouble sort of getting

[17:30] organized to fight the Taliban.

[17:32] Sometimes you wonder if they if they

[17:34] take the threat of the Taliban as

[17:36] seriously uh as we seem to take it uh in

[17:39] this country. Do you have faith that

[17:41] they can can beat the Taliban in their

[17:44] country?

[17:45] >> We had a problem I'd say a year or so

[17:48] ago was one we worried about very much

[17:50] in the Bush administration that you had

[17:53] in Pakistan al-Qaeda which had retreated

[17:56] there from Afghanistan. You had the

[17:58] Taliban coming back and forth across the

[18:00] border and u the feeling that the

[18:04] Pakistani government um understood that

[18:07] the al-Qaeda was a threat to the US and

[18:09] that the Taliban were a threat to

[18:10] Afghanistan, but they didn't believe

[18:12] they were threatened. I think that is

[18:14] gone now. I think they understand full

[18:16] well that those radical Islamists,

[18:18] whatever their stripe, in northwestern

[18:20] Pakistan, would love to see the

[18:23] government in in Islamabad toppled. And

[18:26] uh I think they're committed to do that.

[18:28] That's a major step forward just to have

[18:30] the government in Pakistan understand

[18:32] that they are as threatened if not more

[18:34] so than uh our the United States or

[18:37] Afghanistan.

[18:39] >> What about uh Afghanistan? President

[18:42] Cararzi said recently that maybe we

[18:44] ought to stop some of the air attacks

[18:46] there because of civilian uh casualties.

[18:49] Uh Jim Jones, the uh new national

[18:52] security adviser, said uh he did not

[18:54] foresee air attacks being stopped there.

[18:57] U how's that war going in your view?

[19:00] What are we doing that we should be

[19:02] doing and what are we doing or what is

[19:04] not happening that should be happening

[19:06] in your analysis?

[19:07] >> I think um

[19:10] we we have to get our heads around the

[19:11] concept that there's not likely to be a

[19:14] point any time in the near future when

[19:16] you can say, "Oh, there it's all wrapped

[19:18] up. we can go home. I think that's the

[19:19] wrong way to look at this conflict. Uh

[19:22] Afghanistan is a very very difficult

[19:25] part of the world to operate in from an

[19:27] economic standpoint, a geographical

[19:29] standpoint. It's it's a very tough uh

[19:32] place to to do business. What happened,

[19:35] of course, was that uh it became a a

[19:38] sanctuary for al-Qaeda and they used it

[19:40] to train terrorists to come to the

[19:42] United States and kill Americans. We

[19:44] can't allow that to happen. we can't

[19:45] allow to go ourselves to go back to a

[19:47] situation where Afghanistan is um out

[19:51] there operating. There's no US presence,

[19:54] no foreign military presence until we're

[19:57] convinced that the Afghans themselves

[19:58] can control all their sovereign

[20:00] territory. When that day happens, I

[20:02] think we'd be happy to leave. But that

[20:03] that's how I would define success in

[20:06] Afghanistan is it no longer constitutes

[20:08] a threat to the United States. I think

[20:10] uh we have to be committed there for a

[20:12] long period of time. I was glad to see

[20:13] President Obama commit additional troops

[20:15] to Afghanistan. I think um we need to do

[20:18] whatever we have to do there to to be

[20:20] able to prevail. Air strikes are an

[20:22] important part of it and a lot of times

[20:24] the air strikes do generate controversy

[20:26] but often times we found in the past

[20:29] that these strikes are engineered by by

[20:32] the Taliban. For example, the suggestion

[20:34] in the most recent case is that they

[20:36] used grenades

[20:38] uh to kill a lot of civilians u not

[20:41] American bombs. Let me ask you about

[20:43] Guantanamo. U President Obama said it's

[20:46] going to be closed within a year. It's

[20:48] proved to be a little more complicated

[20:50] than perhaps some in the administration

[20:52] thought it was going to be. Now you've

[20:54] got Congress in a real uproar about uh

[20:57] if these people are brought to prisons

[20:59] in this country. Uh we've had

[21:01] resolutions introduced up there on the

[21:03] hill that uh unless the state

[21:05] legislature gives the go-ahad, you can't

[21:07] put them into a prison any place uh in

[21:10] in in that particular state. But can we

[21:13] ask other countries to take these people

[21:15] back, Mr. Vice President, if we're not

[21:17] willing to take them back in this

[21:19] country?

[21:20] >> Well, we have asked other countries to

[21:22] take them back and they've refused. I

[21:24] can remember a situation before we left

[21:26] office where we were trying to find a

[21:27] home for some weaggguers who were

[21:29] generally believed not to be all that

[21:30] big a threat. They ended up in Albania

[21:33] because Albania was the only country in

[21:34] the world that would take them.

[21:36] >> The what's left we we've released

[21:38] hundreds already of the less threatening

[21:41] types. About 12% of them nonetheless

[21:43] went back into the fight as terrorist.

[21:45] >> The group that's left, the 245 or so,

[21:48] these are the worst of the worst. This

[21:50] is the hardcore. you'd have a recidivism

[21:52] rate out of this group of maybe 50 or

[21:54] 60%. They want to get out because they

[21:57] want to kill more Americans and um

[22:00] they're they you're just going to find

[22:01] it very difficult to send them any

[22:03] place. Now, as I say, there've been some

[22:05] talk on the part of the administration

[22:06] about putting them in the United States.

[22:09] I think that's going to be a tough sale.

[22:11] I don't know of a single congressional

[22:12] district in this country that's going to

[22:14] want to say, "Gee, great, they're

[22:15] sending us 20 al-Qaeda terrorists." Um

[22:18] it it's a um uh it's a graphic

[22:22] demonstration of why Guantanamo is

[22:25] important. We had to have a place a

[22:27] facility where we could capture these

[22:29] people and hold them until they were no

[22:31] longer a danger to the United States. If

[22:33] you bring them to the United States,

[22:34] they acquire all kinds of legal rights

[22:36] and and scholar Shake Muhammad said when

[22:39] we captured him, he said, "I'll talk to

[22:41] you guys after I get to New York and see

[22:43] my lawyer." Um, that's the kind of

[22:45] problem you're going to have with with

[22:47] these terrorists. Let's

[22:48] >> talk quickly about your party, the

[22:50] Republican party. A lot of controversy.

[22:51] Arlland Spectre has left. He said

[22:53] there's no no room for moderates in the

[22:56] party anymore. You said last week, uh,

[22:58] the party should not moderate, but what

[23:01] are you going to do? Uh, I mean, you can

[23:04] purify the party to the point that it's

[23:06] too small to ever get elected to

[23:08] anything. uh how do you uh broaden the

[23:11] appeal of your party and uh and yet uh

[23:15] do you think uh there's a place for a

[23:17] moderates?

[23:17] >> Oh, sure. I think there there is room

[23:20] for moderates in the Republican party. I

[23:22] think partly it's a semantic problem

[23:24] right there. I don't think the party

[23:26] ought to move um dramatically to the

[23:29] left for example uh in order to try to

[23:31] redefine its base. We are what we are.

[23:33] We're Republicans. We have certain

[23:34] things we believe in and maintaining uh

[23:38] our loyalty and commitment to those

[23:40] principles is vital to our success. I

[23:42] think there are some good efforts out

[23:43] there. Jeb Bush I know has been working

[23:45] on it. Eric Caner, Mitt Romney trying to

[23:48] find ways to appeal to a broader range

[23:50] of people. I don't have any problem with

[23:51] that. I think that's that's a good thing

[23:53] to do. But the suggestion our Democratic

[23:55] friends always make is somehow, you

[23:57] know, if you Republicans were just more

[23:58] like Democrats, you'd win elections.

[24:00] Well, I don't buy that. I think we win

[24:02] elections when we have good solid

[24:04] conservative principles to run upon and

[24:06] base our policies on those principles.

[24:08] >> Uh Colon Powell, Rush Limbbo said the

[24:10] other day that party probably be better

[24:12] off if Coen Powell left and just became

[24:14] a Democrat. Pal said Republicans

[24:17] would be better off if they didn't have

[24:19] Rush Limbbo out speaking for him. Where

[24:21] do you come down?

[24:22] >> Well, if I had to choose uh in terms of

[24:24] being a Republican, I'd go with Rush

[24:26] Limbo. I think I think um my take on it

[24:29] was Coen had already left the party. I

[24:31] didn't know he was still a Republican,

[24:32] >> you know. So, you you think that he's

[24:34] not a Republican?

[24:36] >> I just noted he uh endorsed um the

[24:39] Democratic candidate for president this

[24:40] time, Barack Obama. I assume that um

[24:43] that's some indication of his loyalty

[24:45] and his interest.

[24:46] >> And and you said you'd take Rush Limbbo

[24:48] over Colon Pal.

[24:49] >> I would.

[24:50] >> All right.

[24:50] >> Politically,

[24:51] >> Mr. Vice President, you promised some

[24:53] news. I think we probably made a little.

[24:55] All right.

[24:55] >> Thank you, sir. We'll be back in a

[24:57] minute.

[25:04] This portion of Face the Nation is

[25:06] brought to you by Kico Phillips. Energy

[25:09] for tomorrow.

[25:13] Teach a teacher about energy and we can

[25:15] help a generation build a better future.

[25:18] That's why Kico Phillips is working with

[25:20] National Energy Education Development,

[25:23] conducting experiments that help our

[25:25] children understand energy and the

[25:27] importance of conservation. Getting kids

[25:29] interested in math and science. Bringing

[25:32] energy to life so we can pass on what

[25:35] matters to the ones who matter most.

[25:39] Kico Phillips. Energy for tomorrow.

[25:43] >> Amazing Grace.

[25:44] >> How sweet the sound has saved. A

[25:47] crackhead, drug addict, alcoholic,

[25:49] >> meth freak,

[25:49] >> a rich like me.

[25:52] >> I once was

[25:54] >> homeless,

[25:54] >> broken,

[25:56] sad,

[25:57] >> just lost,

[25:58] >> but now I am sober,

[26:00] >> happy,

[26:01] >> unfound.

[26:03] Was blind, but now I see.

[26:06] >> Every day, shattered lives are restored

[26:09] thanks to the goods you donate to the

[26:11] Salvation Army.

[26:14] Finally today, so David Sudter, maybe

[26:16] the quietest and most low-key man ever

[26:19] to serve on the Supreme Court, has made

[26:21] it official he is retiring to return to

[26:24] the New Hampshire woods from whence he

[26:27] came. By all accounts, he was a good

[26:29] justice, thoughtful, reasonable. For

[26:31] sure, he was a surprise to the man who

[26:34] nominated him, the first George Bush,

[26:35] who thought he was picking a

[26:37] conservative, only to discover he'd

[26:39] chosen a liberal. But these things

[26:41] happen sometimes when people get jobs

[26:43] for life. I had no problem with the

[26:45] justice's legal work. But as one who has

[26:48] lived 40 years in Washington, I'll be

[26:50] honest, I didn't care for his attitude.

[26:53] He made it no secret that he hated the

[26:55] city. Once describing his work as the

[26:57] best job in the world, in the worst city

[27:00] in the world. Another time, he called

[27:02] life here akin to an intellectual

[27:04] labbotomy. really our nation's capital.

[27:08] One of the most beautiful cities in the

[27:10] world. Call me corny, but I have to

[27:12] confess I've run into some pretty smart

[27:14] people here over the years, but then

[27:16] again, I tried to get to know the city

[27:18] and its inhabitants. Who wouldn't if you

[27:20] were going to live in a place, Justice

[27:22] Sudter, obviously. I've never known

[27:24] anyone who ever saw him outside the

[27:26] court. And now he is leaving. I take it

[27:29] he won't miss Washington, but my guess

[27:31] is Washington will hardly miss him.

[27:35] That's it. We'll see you next week right

[27:37] here on Face the Nation.

[27:42] >> Emily, fill in the blank. In this

[27:44] economy, it's everybody's business to

[27:46] what?

[27:47] >> Okay. It's everybody's business to do

[27:50] even more with less. Less is the new

[27:53] more, right?

[27:54] >> Of course,

[27:57] >> it's clear we need more energy from all

[28:00] sources. And most Americans agree we

[28:02] need more domestic oil and natural gas.

[28:04] But does that mean you'll see more oil

[28:06] and gas platforms? Well, with advanced

[28:09] subsidy technology, one platform can now

[28:12] gather oil from wells 40 m away.

[28:16] So what used to take many just a few

[28:17] years ago now takes only one. That's

[28:20] more of the oil and natural gas we need

[28:23] from less than meets the eye. Log on to

[28:25] learn more.

[28:35] It's the Air Force's secret weapon

[28:37] that's killing insurgents and saving

[28:38] American lives.

[28:40] >> This is the Reaper over here.

[28:41] >> And 60 Minutes is cleared to show it to

[28:43] you tonight.

[28:45] >> One of these three teams will take home

[28:46] a million dollars. The Amazing Race

[28:48] finale. CBS Tonight.

[28:57] Mako paints over half a million cars

[28:59] every year, more than anyone else.

[29:06] And no one gets you back faster.

[29:10] Mako, America's body shop. This week,

[29:13] our ambassador paint service is just

[29:15] $2.49. Go to makeo.com.

[29:20] >> You know what, Mike? I'm moving in.

[29:21] >> What? With me?

[29:22] >> What? Are you crazy? I'm moving into

[29:24] Lita. These low rates are cheaper than

[29:26] my mortgage. What about your family?

[29:28] >> They're going to love your house.

[29:29] Thanks, Chief.

[29:30] >> Wake up on the bright side at Lintita in

[29:32] and suits with rates from $59. Lita,

[29:35] >> when you're searching the web for the

[29:37] best healthcare advice, click on health

[29:39] connections at coinlo6.com. You'll find

[29:41] answers on preventative medicine,

[29:43] allergies,

[29:44] >> off sprinter vans. Now, your best buy is

[29:46] at Timberline or I'll eat my hat.

[29:49] Onpoint Community Credit Union has

[29:51] information that will help you get your

[29:52] finances